9 Foods You're Not Allowed To Buy

Fortune magazine has compiled a list of 9 “forbidden’ foods that have been banned (for some reason or another) in the US. Trans fats in NYC, foie gras in Chicago… Here’s the list:

Trans fats
Banned in: New York City

Raw milk
Banned in: 21 states

Absinthe
Banned in: The U.S. (sort of: Absinthe is legal in the United States, contrary to popular belief, as long as the spirit’s levels of thujone – a toxic chemical present in wormwood, one of the herbs used to make absinthe – do not surpass the Food and Drug Administration’s limit of 10 parts per million.)

Food bans seem kind of stupid to me. On the other hand, Americans seem to be unable to regulate their own nutritional intake, resulting in us getting fatter and fatter, so maybe the government needs to do it for us?

As an aside, if high-fructose corn syrup is banned in San Francisco, what will happen to all of the sodas? Will they go back to using cane sugar for San Franciscan sodas? Because that would be awesome.

San Francisco wants to ban high fructose corn syrup? Well, that should make shopping there easy since all they would have left in the store is the meat, produce and cleaning supply sections. Until they figure out how to put HFCS in fresh produce, at least. Pretty much every other product in the store would be banned.

If people want to drink raw milk, I say let them drink raw milk. But having driven a milk truck around to various farms to collect milk, I can assure you that you don’t want to ever drink raw milk. Ever watch Dirty Jobs?

I’ve already banned HFC from my life. Unfortunately, it is coming down to a few juices that can be purchased at Costco and sodas made for sale during Passover. Otherwise, slim pickings because you can’t even order things like sweetened tea any longer — they all have that damned HFC.

@Pennsylvanian123: There’s a fair amount of HFCS products (like soda) that have cane-sugar varieties that aren’t too hard to find. They’d just have to import them. The cost would go up, but if one of the bigger cities in the nation banned HFCS, maybe others would follow.

Major kudos to San Francisco for trying to eradicate what is one of the most disgusting substances still considered legal in the U.S.

@Victo: Anglophiles are generally quite skittish about eating horse, despite it being popular in a lot of other places (e.g. France, Scandinavia and Japan). I had basashi in Kyushu and I’ve got to say, it was quite good.

Although not exactly banned, Miracle Fruit is another item that the government has consistently kept out of our hands. Eat just one berry, and it makes even the sourest foods taste amazingly sweet for up to an hour afterward. Sour cream tastes like cheesecake, and lemons are practically candy-like. Unless you’re growing your own plants, the berries spoil too quickly to ship by any means other than FedEx. Decades ago, companies teased out the active ingredient (miraculin) and turned it into a food additive, but the FDA could never be moved to approve its use.

Monsanto’s frankenfoods have been shown to kill bee populations and these nine are banned?

Clearly, people’s health is not behind the decisions of what to ban except for shark fins, and that may only be due to concerns for their numbers; if the rich ever acquire a taste for it, watch it come off the list.

I second what mcs328 said about shark fins. Walk into any good Chinese restaurant you’ll see shark fin soup on the menu (or heck – try an Asian supermarket – there are huge dried shark
fins on display in the one in my old neighborhood).

And – Absinthe – there’s also a loophole if you’re into the really toxic variety. Buy it from an overseas distributer and you can get any brand you want (that’s what I did).

Newsweek just did a thing about how ‘classic’ absinthe (what Toulouse-Lautrec would have drunk) doesn’t actually have a level of thujone that would be considered illigal today. But it was 140 proof, which would cause hallucinations in just about anyone, regardless of the inclusion of thujone.

Oh, and if San Francisco actually does ban HFCS, I’d expect Jones Soda and Hansen’s Soda to suddenly become very, very popular there. Those are the only two brands I know of that still use actual sugar in their sodas.

@zentec: But I think that’s precisely why they should ban HFC from all things in the US. Since it will be outlawed it will force the food industry to reinventing another less harmful (hopefully) substance to do the same things that HFC is used for now adays. Hopefully by then we can get everything we have today but not have to flip over the labels to see if it has HFC and it will eventually make us go blind like that fat guy did on discovery channel. He drank 2 litres of soda a day.

We are HFCS-free here, too. It’s not simple to do but it is possible. You do have to read each and every label for all the products you buy. My kids are still pissed that Capri-Sun and GoGurt is banned at our house but I told them tough shit.

Ban High-fructose corn syrup! And anything high in saturated fats! And the entire chip and soda/pop aisle. Ok well that’s not going to happen–people just need to learn and *want* to shop and eat smarter!

Do they have to mark it as “high fructose corn syrup” or can it also be listed as just “corn syrup” or “fructose/glucose” or even just “sugar” (in Canada here…)? I’m never sure when looking at labels–either I don’t look at many things with HFCS or else they’re not labeled properly in the ingredients list! Or is anything sweet likely to have HFCS?

When shopping I always try to remember…
“Eat Food
Not Too Much
Mostly Plants”

@Victo: Last (?) year there was a brouhaha in IL about a slaughterhouse/rendering works near DeKalb IL, one of the few in the state/country that handles old horses. (sorry, details are fuzzy). Someone got ALL bent out of shape about it and the next thing you know, the illinois legislature, having solved all other problems, banned the sale of horsemeat in Il.

@nomatteus: High-Fructose Corn Syrup can also be labelled as “modified corn starch” and “modified food starch.” But not “corn syrup” or fructose or glucose. The “high-fructose” part of the descriptor is because they have severely upped the fructose portion of the corn syrup with an enzyme. Also, “modified corn starch” and “modified food starch” can also be other things besides high-fructose corn syrup. That’s the problem with labelling these days – It’s still really hard to know what is in a product just by reading the label. Vagueness is allowed.

@Victo: Because horses are our friends. And you can ride them places, like cars. You wouldn’t eat a Buick, would you? Actually, the idea of horse eating doesn’t bother me.

@Pennsylvanian123: “Until they figure out how to put HFCS in fresh produce, at least…” How about a chilled wedge of iceberg lettuce drizzled with pancake syrup and topped with some diced supreme of grapefruit (this actually sounds edible)? Or, stir-fry broccoli and garlic with soy, HFCS, ginger, a few dashes of hot sauce, and some sliced meat (horse, buffalo or elk).

@Victo: Horsemeat was banned in Illinois after a brouhaha erupted over one of the very few places that will dispose of old horses, near DeKalb. They took glue horses and butchered them. Someone made a big hairy dealio out of it, akin to “think of the CHILdren!!” The Illinois State Legislature, having solved all other problems, assured that would not be allowed to happen any more. Now there’s no place to get rid of old horses, at least not in this state. Or something like that.

I did not know that little legal bit about absinthe. Good to know next time I meet some idiot goth clucking on about how they found the stuff. (Disclaimer: I used to be a “goth.” Never gave a $%^& about absinthe. Most goths have more fads than “normal” people.)

@JustThatGuy3: That’s not a bad idea. In fact, do both; end sugar import tariffs, and end corn subsidies to compensate for the loss of revenue.

Maybe then, not only can we get rid of HFCS, but we can also stop the ridiculous, wasteful practice of trying to make ethanol from corn, when there are so many options that are so much better suited (switchgrass, sugar beets, etc).

I thought it was sweet when Chicago banned foie gras, but I don’t understand the horse meat thing. Foie gras is ducked up because producing it is so cruel, but horse slaughter? Like, pigs are as smart as horses… What’s the dif?

@jamar0303: It’s rarely seen because it spoils so quickly as a fresh fruit. You’re probably going find it only at foodie parties where someone has ordered a batch of the berries via overnight shipping. The FDA doesn’t get into fresh fruit plants much, but it’s apparently not practical for everyone who wants Miracle Fruit to tend to a finicky plant that thrives in a West African climate.
Joanna Slater wrote about the fruit for the Wall Street Journal on 2007-03-30, and also described the uphill battle for FDA regulation of miraculin-based additives.

I know I’m just asking for flames here, but will someone explain why exactly HFCS is so dangerous? It hasn’t been shown to have any adverse effect on health compared to sucrose. I don’t like it because it’s all tied up in corn subsidies and heavily processed, but I understand why manufacturers use it.

When you’re drinking soda made with sucrose, the acidity of it breaks down the sugar into 50/50 glucose and fructose anyhow. This isn’t much different from drinking soda with 45/55 glucose/fructose.

@Victo: Historically, it’s because a horse was worth more as a tool (riding for travel, farming, mounted troops in war, etc.) than as a food. Mind you, I don’t have any documentation to back that up, but that’s always seemed like the logical answer to me.

@kylenalepa: Darwin, man. It’s not the government’s place to be a substitute parent. Let the fatties/unthinking alkies die out and the fitter will remain. As for the gastronomes, well, it’s the strongest who pull the strings…

@Balisong: See, I’ve always thought the while “absinthe trip” was way overstated. I’ve imported quite a bit over the years from various countries and all I’ve ever gotten was about the same level of drunk as a night spent drinking Red Bull and vodka (drunk but still pretty lucid). Tasty stuff though (assuming you like anise flavour).

I heart Chilean sea bass.. OMG you can not cook it wrong, and it still tastes good. Problem there is the poor fishing practices.. it will be gone before we know it…I dont think even “certified” fish helps this species. ( ps- I ate it before I researched its bad to buy-ness. I live with the guilt, and the one filet left in my freezer from my huge Costco purchase.)

History Channel had a nice story about Absinthe and how it was likely banned because of the competition from the French wine companies and it had stories of ugly trips passed onto the states where it was banned out of worry for its high proof rating like moonshine.

You’d have to literally binge on the stuff to screw you, the same as any alcoholic beverage.

2) Bans for health reasons. I think in some cases these bans go too far, but in others are totally justified. Trans fat really should be banned, since it’s essentially a poison. The others are more of a grey area. (Trans fats, raw milk, HFCS, absinthe).

3)Silly bans/animal “cruelty”. Horse meat and foie gras probably fall under here. I don’t believe foie gras is particularly more cruel than any other form of meat production, and the horse meat thing is just stupid, wasteful, cultural garbage.

I grew up in a small farming village and was really upset when I moved to the US and couldn’t find real milk in the stores, only this flat, white water that barely tastes like milk. Raw milk was obviously banned for health reasons, as were many other untreated products:

* Unpasteurized cheese (illegal to sell in many states; I get mine “smuggled” in from Canada by visiting friends)
* Raw almonds (even those that are sold as “raw” or “organic” are treated by a chemical some consider carcinogenic)

And don’t forget the “this thing is so delicious it kills the competition” category – Ugly Tomatoes are illegal to export from Florida.

I think for hazardous foods, the bans make sense. Most people these days rely on restaurants for a large chunk of their nutriton. It’s impossible to tell what a restaurant has put into the food (unless it’s all truthfully disclosed). If the restaurant can’t buy dangerous stuff, though, consumers have some protection.

I heard that a reason ‘food’ manufacturers love HFC is cause your body can accept much more of it before telling you it’s had enough, unlike cane sugar. This means people consume more of their product and they get richer while people get fatter.

Also, is dog/cat meat actually illegal in the US, or is it just frowned on?

@pigeonpenelope: As someone pointed out, it’s really easy to find stuff that doesn’t have it if you shop at Whole Foods or Trader Joe’s. I don’t believe that WF allows anything containing it to be sold (it’s on their “banned additives” list).

@Balisong:
Comment on 9 Foods You’re Not Allowed To Buy Absinthe has always been legal to consume, just not to purchase or sell.
This is why you have companies in the UK, Germany and France (especially
Germany) which will sell you a guaranteed shipment of the goods that you
purchase through them (they are not in the US so basically make the purchase
for you from the local vendor, and then ship the package to you, thereby
circumventing the purchase/sale being in the US). In regards to the
packages possibly being seized: 1) I donâ€™t know of anyone who has ever had
packages seized, myself included. 2) Most online vendors will guarantee the
shipment, meaning if it is seized in customs they will re-send until you get
the package.

I will whole-heartedly agree with you that when drinking Absinthe you will
not be tripping and find the â€œgreen fairy.â€ If, back hundreds of years ago,
someone was truly hallucinating, they were more than likely doing so based
on lead poisoning rather than any actual cause of the liquor being consumed.
There have been many papers about the subject in 2006-2007 on the subject.
This has to do with the binding of the barrels that the liquid was stored
in, and the levels of alcohol causing the lead to leech into the barrel.

In particular most recently you have the American Chemical Society published
an article stating in effect that the actual levels of thujone in the
pre-ban era prior to 1915 all the way up to modern day, that the levels were
all quite similar and that there was nothing abnormal besides possibly
levels of ethanol to explain the â€œsymptoms.â€

NOTE: No regulations have changed. Prior to May 2007 it was not widely
known that the official threshold for thujone analysisâ€”10ppmâ€”is such that it
permits, or effectively “legalizes”, many European absinthes. Currently
several authentic absinthes are now available for purchase at liquor stores
and bars in the US. This is a major breakthrough, as many brands will
follow. Accordingly, the absinthe referred to in the below statutes would
be absinthe which is non-compliant with the current limits or is illegally
introduced to the country. Most of the laws which impact absinthe in the US
are out-dated, unfair, convoluted, illogical, self-contradictory, un-evenly
enforced and misunderstood even by those responsible enforcing them. In
short, it’s a collection of bad law.

@Gann: I don’t know how true that is. What I do know is true and is a huge reason manufacturers love HFCS is that it’s easier to produce & cheaper since we don’t need in import much of it unlike cane sugar.

My science is a little shaky on this part, but I don’t think there’s enough land available in the US that can support to growth of sugarcane to make growing our own viable which is a BIG reason HFCS is unlikely to disappear, sadly.

I am semi-convinced the advent of high-fructose corn syrup in so many products has led to the rise in many conditions, like Type II diabetes and ADHD. It sure ain’t helping. I like pure cane sugar better, but it’s not like it’s part of a healthy diet. Then again, a lot of people are down on artificial sweeteners, too, like aspartame.

@FreeMarketGravy: It’s also cheaper largely because corn is subsidized in this country. Importing cane sugar from Brazil or someplace might be cheaper if it weren’t for U.S. farm subsidies and trade policy. The cost difference isn’t just caused by the difference in where it’s grown.

Here’s another one: Mississippi and Louisiana have banned Chinese catfish. Before tainted toys, dog food, and Heparin, Chinese catfish was found to have huge levels of antibiotics. They banned it for that reason, but also to protect their local catfish industry.

@Gann: No – research has shown that sucrose and HFCS have identical effects on satiety and appetite-regulatng hormones. Pure fructose, on the other hand, has been shown to lower levels of these hormones, which makes people feel less full.

Food processors prefer HFCS to sugar not only because it’s cheaper (or used to be), but also because it’s easier to incorporate into foods and because it extends shelf life. HFCS also doesn’t change its composition over time. Sucrose, however, will break down over time into its component sugars. This means that a 6 month old sugar-containing product will taste/feel/look different than its freshly produced counterpart.

Am I the only one here who doesn’t find it that hard to avoid HFCS? And I don’t go to any crazy measures, I just make all my meals from scratch (because I think it tastes best and is cheapest, not because of HFCS specifically). I buy cereal organic, maple syrup, and I do make my own bread but I know from experience you can find bread in the supermarket without it if you look at the ingredients. Anyone want to enlighten me on the major problems in avoiding HFCS? What you have trouble finding a substitute for?

Oh, and by the way I’m not against having candy or soda once in a while at the movies or something – I just wouldn’t want to be involuntarily eating the stuff all the time in everyday foods.

I grew up on a dairy farm and raw milk is infinitely superior to the processed store bought varieties. Having said that, I would not consume any of it without personally having the cows in my back yard; as another commenter posted, some farms are less than idyllic. The milk truck collected milk every two days so at the oldest, a portion of the milk was 2 days old and had been stored at a constant ~33 deg F the whole time.

This will probably doublepost, but here’s a good article on HFCS vs. sucrose:[junkfoodscience.blogspot.com]The thing I like is, she points out that a lot of these HFCS-demonizing studies compared HFCS to fructose and not sucrose. The thing I don’t like is that she’s adamant that HFCS and sucrose are the same when they’re not. They’re really similar but not identical.

Basically because our body processes the fructose in HFCS differently than it does old-fashioned cane or beet sugar, which messes with the way metabolic-regulating hormones function. It also forces the liver to kick more fat out into the bloodstream at a higher rate, which, well…makes you fatter quicker.

@ConsumptionJunkie: I will be when it’s a possibility to buy things that DON’T have HFCS in them. I more or less do that as is, but I have to go out of my way to do so. I support the idea of a sin tax, but only when it’s a viable option to buy things that do not fall under that tax.

Unless the food it poisonous, I don’t agree with banning any of it. I’m all for clear labeling, but so what if America is getting fatter? That’s a benefit of living in a free country, you get to make choices, and not all of them are good for you. Last I checked our life expectancy is still much higher today than it was 50-100 years ago.

I for one am tired of do-gooders telling me what I can and can’t do to my body. If I want to smoke while driving down the highway, without a seatbelt drinking corn syrup enriched coca-cola, eating my transfat dripping Twinkies no government entity should tell me not to. Where do you draw the line on personal freedom/responsibility?? Why do so many insist the government must “protect” everyone from themselves?

Hmm … it’s a tough one. On the one hand, I don’t like the idea of “banning” things in general. Legalize drugs, you know? On the other hand, when you have companies passing off dangerous, highly processed chemicals as “food,” then, yeah, I’m in favor of banning the sale of those substances as food. I’m talking about things like trans fats and high-fructose corn syrup. These are synthetic products–derived from natural products, yeah, but still dangerous chemicals–that really should not be thought of as food.

I’ve been drinking raw milk for over 3 years and have fully appreciated its far superiority over processed milk. Taste and nutrition in raw milk are much better than in cooked milk

Pasteurization is an outdated practice that was necessary before society progressed towards better sanitation procedures. In fact raw milk, when left out side by side with cooked milk will last much longer without refrigeration and inhibit harmful pathogens. It’s natural antibodies which get killed in pasteurized milk help ward off the nasties.

If you are concerned over the farms cleanliness, visit your local farmers market and ask to take a tour of the farm. It’s all about knowing where your food comes from.

please quit the fear mongering with the “diptheria” bit. the FDA has you psyched.

@ConsumptionJunkie: That would defeat the very purpose of having HFCS in the first place (i.e. its cost). Without corn subsidies and sugar tariffs it would already be more expensive than cane or beet sugar.

@The Bambino: But sucrose is 50% glucose, 50% fructose. When it gets hydrolyzed in the stomach we end up with nearly the same amount of each sugar as if we had eaten HFCS.

Fructose from HFCS and fructose from hydrolyzed sucrose is metabolized in ecaxtly the same manner. Our bodies don’t know the difference.

Some studies that have supported this are Melanson et al.’s “Effects of high-fructose corn syrup and sucrose consumption on circulating glucose, insulin, leptin, and ghrelin and on appetite in normal-weight women” and Monsivais et al.’s “Sugars and satiety: does the type of sweetener make a difference?”.

The problem with banning foods because they’re “bad” for us is that the conventional wisdom of what is “bad” is highly politicized and changes from year to year.

Endangered species, makes sense to ban production and sales. Health claims and cruelty claims? Stick it. Frankly, if they’re going to ban foie for being the product of animal cruelty, you need to ban ALL meat, because what’s crueler than murder?*

*This hyperbolic piece of asswittery brought to you by Ingrid Newkirk, president of PETA.

@bohemian: Yes, but Ho’s study compared HFCS-sweetened drinks to a DIET control, not to a sucrose-sweetened control. How do we know that the same levels of carbonyls aren’t found in drinks sweetened with sugar?

@johnva: Transfat is not a poison except as described by those who want it banned. It has been described as “poisonous” to one’s metabolism because it does not get burned the same as normal fat, but it is NOT a poison in the classic sense of arsenic, etc.

We’ve all been eating too much transfat for too long, while living longer, for me to agree that a ban is necessary. I can agree it’s bad for you, like a lot of stuff we put into our bodies, and that you certainly have a right NOT to consume any, but I don’t agree with a government ban. I don’t want to live in a society where the government is so concerned about my well-being that I can’t enjoy things I really enjoy, simply because some bureaucrat some where has decided it’s bad for me. Today it’s smoking and transfat, tomorrow, is HFCS and Liquor, after that it’s playing a violent video game… as long as you continue to allow the government to make these decisions for you, it won’t be long until you aren’t allowed to make any decisions for yourself.

Regarding endangered species, there is no need to ban them in food, since the killing, harvesting, possessing etc. is already illegal. Why do we need two laws that essentially do the same thing?

@TWSS: The bans should not be driven by “conventional wisdom”. They should be driven by science. That is not so subject to political whims and misinterpretation.

And with things like transfat or HFCS, they’re banning a food additive, not a food. I think that makes it a bit different since there are substitutes that food producers can easily use (sometimes at increased cost).

A Philapeno friend of mine used to tease me about the weird things they eat in the provinces. I’ll have to let him know that he can no longer eat dog when he goes back to visit family (since last year):

Funny I could not find anything about it being banned in the U.S. Wikipedia only says that State and local laws are used to enforce it. That’s one that should be on the list, but ban the cat? What’s that all about.. Extra Crispy… MMMMM…MMM!

@whydidnt:
But you don’t lose anything by banning transfat, for the most part. There are perfectly good substitutes. You can use more saturated fat, for example, and still get most of the same cooking properties. The use of trans fat is in part driven by cost, since it increases shelf-stability of processed foods. I just don’t think it’s okay for food companies to use a proven dangerous additive just to save a few pennies in their supply chain.

As for endangered species, it’s been shown again and again that you need a multi-layered approach to really cut down on the market for them. We have to destroy the consumer market for the species or people will still harvest and trade in them illegally. Maybe these particular regulations aren’t the best approach, but they’re just trying to attack the problem on both ends.

@johnva: RE your foie gras comment: Wrong-o. Google it, sucka. Keep in mind that it’s totally legal to treat poultry however you want in the process of food production. Force feed a horse with a steel rod jammed down her throat until her liver swells up to some ungodly size and see where that lands ya.

I had heard about that quite a while back, I think it was an article about a bar in Japan that served the fruit. I didn’t understand the rational behind the ban. Of course, we can’t always find rational reasons behind the way our government works.

@teapartys_over: I agree it can be avoided but it gets sneaked into the most ridiculous things. I found it in a can of stewed tomatoes (can’t remember which brand) – why do canned tomatoes need high fructose corn syrup?

@teapartys_over: My problem with it is that it is in a lot of things that most people wouldn’t think of as including a sweetener in the ingredients. Therefore they are not even on the lookout for it. That’s because manufacturers are using it as a preservative. So HFCS is popping up in Lea & Perrin’s Worcestershire Sauce, mustard, Italian salad dressing, rotisserie chicken (because it’s in the rub or marinade they use), etc. So people are consuming sweetener, and sweet empty calories, because hfcs is an effective and cheap preservative. It adds empty calories to what should normally be a healthy, or at least semi-neutral, food choice.

@Sherryness: Exactly. The problem with HFCS isn’t so much that’s it’s worse for you than sugar. The problem is that it has prompted the food industry to add sugar to a vast array of foods that didn’t have it before. I bet that alone has increased the average daily caloric intake of Americans.

@postnocomments: Yep, if they just stop subsidizing it, I bet it would go away.

I’d add stevia, the naturally super-sweet plant that can be used either as a leaf, or as an crystalline extract as a sugar substitute and that is widely used as such in many other countries.

However, in the US, thanks to lobbying by Monsanto (then headed by Donald Rumsfeld) who didn’t want competition to Aspartame, it can’t be sold as a food in the US. Fortunately, it is available as an herbal supplement, but this really limits it’s distribution channels and keeps it out of things like soft drinks.

@postnocomments: who cares? i don’t want to live to be 200. or even 90. hell i could keep going lower, but you get the idea. i personally feel like living it up while i’m still young. what’s the point in preserving yourself for the sake of old age? makes me think of old people in convertables or sports cars that never drive over 30mph.

@chuloallen: It’s closer to food than a cigar is. People put it through their digestive systems. I can’t remember the last time I saw someone swallow a cigar. By your logic, by the way, I’d not count high-fructose corn syrup as a food either!

Banning HFCS across this nation will take some time, but would do the nation a lot of good. I don’t see it happening due to heavy lobbying by American Corn growers and the embargo on Cuba, one of the larger sugar producers in the world. Our sugar is thusly 3 times as expensive anywhere else.

@johnva: “But you don’t lose anything by banning transfat, for the most part.”

Sure you do. You lose the right to eat transfat. I’m not a child. I’m capable of being an informed consumer and figuring out what is and is not good for me without government intervention. And should I get a sudden hankering for french fries dipped in margarine, I should be able to indulge that craving without fear of the food police.

@Critcol: IMO Trader Joe’s prices are pretty reasonable. I think its cheaper then Safeway and waayy cheaper than Whole Foods. I’d go to the Joe’s in Rockridge over the Whole Foods in Berkeley any day….

Google it, and you’ll see several opinions on whether this is or isn’t banned, but my experience is that retailers can’t get the stuff. Apparently, the folate is keeping mass commercial imports out, but travelers bringing it in, as well as individuals importing it for their own use seems to be okay.

@The Bambino: Thank you for lending an ear. I’m not saying it’s fine and dandy to be putting in all our food – like I said earlier, I try to avoid it for other reasons. But there’s virtually no evidence to show that it’s any unhealthier than plain sugar.

@legerdemain: Try an international food store. A guy in FineScale Modeler magazine came up with a novel use for it (masking sprayed/airbrushed paint) and in his article he said he got it at the local equivalent to the Whole Foods Market in my area.

@CPC24: Actually, at least here in Mississippi, Chinese catfish wasn’t banned. The law just made it to where ANY catfish from another country, must be labeled as such. The issue was caused by the Vietnamese Basa fish.

Problems for Mississippi catfish farmers arose after unlabeled Vietnamese catfish began flooding the U.S. market.

Hiya folks, regarding HFCS, I live in San Francisco, and there are plenty of (non-mass) sodas and snacks available without HFCS, so I won’t be affected. Banning HFCS will have an odd effect unless/until the US Govt. decides to end the odd tarrifs on sugar combined with subsidy of corn to benefit the corn lobby (aka ADM). The true tragedy of both HFCS and Methanol/Ethanol is that we’re converting food crop land into fuel crop land, which is driving up global food prices.

At least we’re raising the bar for competition into higher lifestyle, so that fewer people will have money to buy the now endangered chinook salmon?

Anyway, there you go. Have a nice weekend, and don’t worry about the 1/3 of the world who are starving while we fret over where our sugars come from!

@HeartBurnKid
You can still get Coke and Pepsi that are made with sugar instead of HFCS – just not in most places in the US. I live near SF and there’s a few Mexican grocery stores that carry Coke sweetened with sugar.

er, humphri, you miss the point slightly. The only reason we have HFCS in this country (and no other!) is that people have been fretting over where we get our sugars from.

They were determined that we get them from a continentally grown crop, so they passed legislation making that happen.

If only we didn’t do that sort of thing, there’d be more food grown for eating, we’d be buying sugar at a fraction of the price, and some poor countries would have a better lifestyle. (unless, of course, you realize that the sugar plantations are in the hands of non-resident landowners, and the money flows directly away)

HFCS is not anything like a poisonous chemical. One develops a portly robust frame, if he overindulges, but that’s no excuse for a ban.

I don’t even believe that HFCS is principally responsible for the problem of obesity in America. The food items most likely to be responsible, in my opinion, are diet foods. Americans aren’t fat because they aren’t dieting; they’re fat because they are! When you eat very few calories your metabolism falls and in that condition, the majority of the calories you consume are turned into fat rather than be used by the body. So, people eat diet foods, their metabolism falls, they slip up every now and again, eating foods with a large number of calories, those calories are stored as fat, and then, seeing their increase in weight, they resolve to lost weight by eating MORE diet foods, etc… It’s a vicious circle.

What needs to be unbanned before anything else is all forms of recreational drugs, but that’s not going to happen, because of the DEA, the pharmaceutical industry, the CIA, corrupt venal politicians, prison administrators, etc… Who’s not making money off of that – uh, you know, besides your average powerless yoked citizen?

Hey, let’s ban HFCS so the price of groceries go beyond the reach of a majority of people in the US so the food riots can start here too. Your consumption of any component of a food product is totally up to you, if you eat a lot of HFCS you are the cause of your own maladies – eat less overall and you eat less HFCS. Banning HFCS will only deprive you and your family of affordable food items you currently enjoy because some people can’t just shut their mouths.

Eh, part of me feels like people should be allowed to eat what they want. The risks should definitely be made known, but beyond that it’s a personal choice.

There is a huge underground movement of foodies secretly buying/importing banned foods in the U.S. A lot of the stuff is still available if you know where to look, so people are eating what they want regardless. This is especially true with raw milk in farming communities. If I cared to I could find it easier than I could find pot, and that’s really saying something.

(I have no issue with HFCS being banned, though. Coke made with real sugar would be awesome.)

@datapants: Yes! My friends had a miracle fruit party last year (they have a “dealer”) and they are truly amazing. Everyone brought sour foods, and we were eating lemons and lime as if they were oranges.

@Sherryness: I had no idea about “modified starches” masquerading as HFCS…thanks!

It’s ridiculous that I live in a country that allows HFCS but won’t let me indulge in runny unpasteurized milk cheeses. Sometimes the cheese shops here “accidentally” receive a shipment that includes a few, and they sell it anyway.

Finally I’ll say that when I made an effort to eat as little HFCS as possible, my digestive/IBS problems disappeared. The last time I was in Europe (eating whatever I wanted) I found this to be the case. When I came back, I was eager to figure out exactly why I felt like shit eating a relatively healthy diet…I figured it was probably all the HFCS and other genetically modified corn products. Maybe there’s a small chance this isn’t the case, but I feel MUCH better these days (plus I’ve lost weight).

I only wish HFCS were totally banned. Corn agriculture has overtaken most other ag products because of it’s use for biofuels and HFCS. I would much prefer to go back to (admittedly more expensive) cane syrup. It’s much healthier as sweeteners go. It tastes much better – especially in soft drinks (which I no longer drink because of HFCS – so I’m probably better off now). HFCS is implicaated in so many diseases and conditions in the US population that it boggles the mind why it’s allowed at all. The population is developing more and more allergies to corn than in the past because of the saturation of corn sweeteners being in 99% of the food products we use. Cornstarch is in baking powder – just an example. My family’s allergies to corn are severe. It’s very difficult to put any type of food not made from scratch on the table anymore. As you can tell – I’m very anti-corn (except as a vegetable or a tortilla ingredient).

@Quietly: I haven’t read all 200 of the response – so I don’t know if anyone has posted this information, but you can get cane syrup sweetened Cokes easier during Passover and from Mexican food grocery stores.

@CPC24: They should also restrict the import of Chinese shrimp for the same reasons. Support locally harvested foods.

@teapartys_over:I’ve searched high and low to find a commercially available bread that do4esn’t have a corn product in it for my mother who can no longer eat bread because of her allergy and her age makes it hard for her body to cope. Can’t find one. It’s in there in every brand including the kosher Arnold’s. Usually kosher certified foods helps to weed out the corn products – but not with bread. Hve to makeit from scratch.

@bones: I challenge you to find real FOOD that has been packaged that doesn’t have HFCS. I know this because I’ve searched. It’s even in dog foods. It’s pervasive since it can be listed as a different product – like modified food starch. Only if it’s in its raw state can you be positive that there is no HFCS or other corn based product added. I don’t see having an alternative to that additive a big problem for food suppliers and increased costs. What we spend maybe on increase in food costs because of the substitution for corn would be easily saved in health concerns and doctor/medicine bills.

@leftystrat: Smoking is a little different, I think. There are negative externalities which bother people who don’t smoke. When I’m eating dinner at an expensive restaurant, I don’t want to also taste the cigar from the guy across the room. I agree that if there are no (or barely noticable) negative externalities, then, for the most part, government should be hands off. However, your statement, when taken to hyperbole (here, we can see that I realize that there is a logical failing with this argument – I understand this, but I believe that it is close enough to make a fair comparison) would be:I hate pollution so I don’t pollute. However, if everyone else wants to pollute, they should feel free to do it as much as they desire.

@FerryPrincess: Then we can buy it from someone else. It’s not a big deal. I mean, the whole point (ok, not the whole point) of NAFTA was so that we could trade corn. Mexico grows corn. We told Mexico that NAFTA would be a great thing. When they finally came around to it BAM! Tons of corn subsidies in the US. We basically stole all the corn farmers’ jobs in Mexico because of it. Do we get corn cheaper?In a manner of speaking, yes and no. The farmers sell corn for less than would be the market price if the government wasn’t giving them crazy subsidies, but guess who’s paying that money? Tax payers.

Man is no one responsible for themselves anymore? Kids kill classmates blame vid games and music. Sex crazed teens blame lack of religion. 400 pounders dropping like flys blame hollandaise sauce. Hey heres an idea make all schools have gym every semester of every grade level.

@privateer: I hope you realize that ADHD is grossly over-diagnosed. I’m not saying that ADHD isn’t a real disorder, but that alot of “physicians” are too quick to declare that ADHD is the problem and then prescribe ritalin. Most parents do this without getting the opinions of other doctors.

as an alternative to soda’s with HFCS, you guys should check out dublin dr. pepper: dublindrpepper.com. It’s made in the original Dr. Pepper plant in Dublin, TX and they use sugar cane instead of HFCS. It’s a little pricey, $10 for a case of 24 and it’s $5 shipping for 2 cases, but it’s definitely delicious, and better than HFCS.

So where silly do you all think milk comes from, a sterilized jug beamed from the sky? It all comes from the same place, from a cow that poops all day, every day. That is why the teats are cleaned and the bucket is cleaned, not the milk. We own Jerseys….we do not sale but we give away what we can not use.

Regarding the list of “endangered” products, your readers should know that the proposal to tax beverages in San Francisco that contain high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) has not been adopted.

HFCS, sugar, honey, and several fruit juices all contain the same simple sugars. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration granted high fructose corn syrup “Generally Recognized as Safe” status for use in food, and reaffirmed that ruling in 1996 after thorough review.

In a joint letter to San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom concerning the proposed tax, the Center for Science in the Public Interest and the Corn Refiners Association jointly opposed the proposal and explained that HFCS and table sugar are similar in composition and that several studies have shown that the two types of sugars are metabolized similarly by the body. On its website, CSPI says that the idea that HFCS is more harmful than sugar is an “urban myth” and that there would be no health benefit whatsoever if companies switched from HFCS to sugar.

As somebody pointed out above about the nitwits behind the ban on foie gras, a food that relatively few people eat, if only the chickens sold by the bazillions of pounds in grocery stores across America had a life as good as the foie gras geese do.

My friend Andrew Gumbel reported on this for the Independent, in the UK. I linked to his piece and more info here:

Shark “Finning” is bad bad bad….. the shark populations have decreased by 90%. No sharks to regulate the fish populations that eat phytoplankton, and the phytoplankton start disappearing. And guess where 70% of OUR oxygen comes from…..

That’s right. By allowing the mass slaughter of sharks worldwide, FOR NOTHING MORE THAN THEIR FINS, we are killing our planet, and ourselves. This MUST stop.

It is absolutely barbaric. Shark finners drop long lines (among other methods) that can stretch 60 MILES… these lines catch all kinds of things. Turtles, fish, sharks, etc…. and the unwanted sealife are killed by the lines and cut loose. The sharks are pulled up, fins cut off, and dumped back into the ocean, WHILE STILL ALIVE, where they sink to the bottom to die.

Think about it people. Your greedy fucking IMAGE of wealth by eating shark fin soup is an atrocity against nature and ourselves.

oh, you opponents of HFCS are not just misguided, you are severely misinformed. since before 1980, you have consumed HFCS without your knowlege. back then, zillions of tests were performed on the daily foods you ingested by substituting HFCS for cane sugar. when taste test results returned positive, manufacturers of food products containing cane sugar switched to HFCS as fast as the HFCS market would allow. why, you ask? well, for starters, we consumers demand reasonable prices. another little cause and effect, called US govt cane sugar price supports, protects US cane sugar growers from having to compete in the world sugar market. cane sugar prices (continue to) remain artificially high in the US when compared to the world market price, while HFCS competes worldwide, hence much lower prices for HFCS users. while it is true that US govt supports corn growers, it had/has NOTHING to do with HFCS – it was all about putting (corn based) food on your tables for the past 70 years. now, that same US govt support for corn growers also helps develop corn alcohol for your hybrid fuel-using cars. corn growers are very profitable right now thanks to your US govt corn support. corn supply is not meeting demand at this time, so expect price increases at your local grocery store on those items containing sugar which one might enjoy from time to time. so, children, it depends on which spin one wants to put this HFCS issue – i only speak truthfully. oh, by the way, your body digests and converts HFCS to energy in the same manner that it digests cane sugar, so fear not that HFCS is any more detrimental to your health than cane sugar. i know this, for i am in the business, and a healthcare provider on top of that. even if HFCS was not even on the market, then (some of you) would be calling for a ban on cane sugar to reduce obesity and other healthcare risks. i suggest that we all kick our children outside to play, throw away all home computers and video games, buy a bicycle and get active (like we once were as kids).

Green turtle soup is banned in the US. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Services classified Chelonia mydas as a threatened species, rendering
it a federal offense to capture or otherwise kill an individual
turtle. In part due to this, the Hawaiian green turtle subpopulation
has made a remarkable comeback and is now also the subject of
eco-tourism and has become something of a state mascot.